If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

By the time "they " come up with anything, windows will not be relevant for me.
In fact, word on street is that ext2 plugin will read ext4 just fine, unless it has extents enabled. But extents is the best thing about ext4, so migration is pointless in this case.

By the time "they " come up with anything, windows will not be relevant for me.
In fact, word on street is that ext2 plugin will read ext4 just fine, unless it has extents enabled. But extents is the best thing about ext4, so migration is pointless in this case.

Some added information about ext4

Hi there, I just came across this discussion thread about Phoronix's "Real World Benchmarks of the EXT4 filesystem". In answer to the questions about e2fsck speeds, typical results on a filesystem which is created as a native ext4 filesystem is that it is 6-8 times faster at e2fsck speeds compared to ext3. See my blog posting at: http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2008/08/...t4-fsck-times/

Secondly, it should be noted that ext4 has barriers on by default (for safety's sake) while ext3 has barriers off by default (it's actually Andrew Morton who has resisted enabling barriers by default). So when ext4 beats ext3 that's despite the fact that ext3 has an "unfair" advantage over filesystems such as xfs and ext4 which enable barriers by default. You can mount ext3 with the mount option barriers=1 if you want to do a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Finally there are some very good benchmarks available at http://btrfs.boxacle.net, done by a guy who works at IBM doing performance measurements. This site's primary mission is benchmarking in support of btrfs development, but there are also some very good benchmarks that compare ext3, ext4, jfs, xfs, and development versions of btrfs. For example please see: